How does science disprove the Bible?

That is weird logic on too many levels. You not only assume the 'us' is angels, but you also assume that God couldn't converse in one realm i.e., the supernatural, while in the process of creating the physical world.Always makes me laugh when people just 'know' what the Bible says, without realizing that all of the evidence is in their interpretation, and not the actual text.

There is a pretty elaborate thread around here somewhere which asks just that. IIRC, angels were not the immediate explanation, or the most fitting, for the 'US" in Genesis. I can do a search for that thread if you like, unless someone gets to it before I do. I just remember the name changed a few times, so it might take me a minute. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, so I will re-read it before I comment. Sure, it says 'US' but it doesn't say who US is. I am not picking on you, it is just a common thing I've noticed when people start a thread or make a statement about the Bible. Often they don't realize that they've started with a conclusion that is not even in there.For the record, a lot of people think 'us' is the Trinity, and THAT is not even really supported textually. I doubt this thought would change your argument in this case, but many times one slight alternate reading makes a huge difference in the subsequent analysis.

Doddy, the best idea so far is the one arach presented in another thread. It is the one most consistant with the Hebrew wording. At any rate, I like it the best.'US' is simply a left-over from the time when it was common to believe in more than one God. Very quickly in Genesis, the 'us' disappears. Still, the Jews would not change the places where it did appear, because they were sticklers on detail.I think it is time to find that thread.

The Bible isn't exactly true or false as I would describe it, it's just incorrect about science pretty often. The only other explanation is that some events where miraculous in nature, or seemed to be to the observers. That idea takes much more faith than simply realizing the obvious: the Bible is a collection of old stories from a time when people didn't know about science. If Christians could just reconcile their pre-conceived notions of everything in the book being 100% true and factual, we wouldn't need to have these debates.The real problem is not what the Bible says, it is how people use words like 'inspired, literal, Word of God' etc. I know you are aware of this, but I am wondering if it's time for a new thread which examines some of the beliefs about the Bible that cause people to be so up in arms?Maybe we could start with some of the church fathers? It's hard sometimes to get the fundamentalists to listen, but it is really important IMHO to follow the developement of belief to where we are now. The church fathers not only had knowledge of the Bible, but they were less removed from the time period and thoughts of the Biblical authors. If anything, THEY were inspired. Long before science had disproved the Bible in the cases mentioned here, the Christian community was hearing that the Bible was not a science text-book. You would think, back then, that they had no cause to doubt it.I have always felt that we have as much to learn from history as we do from science.

Hm, it says that man has a duality, which is evident and doesn't take any science to notice. I wouldn't say that there is any mention of EVERYTHING having duality. What if all the dates were added later on, to make it appear that they were significant?

The Bible is myth? I will be obnoxious for a sec. The Bible contains myth, legend, records, allegory, metaphor, and poetry.
Some stories may have more basis in reality, others less. The collection as a whole can be taken as a history of God's interaction with man, through MAN'S eyes. Some things happened, which people believed were important. They were never recorded infallibly, and they were subject to the same restrictions of knowledge which all men were at the time. Bible readers now should understand that we still simply BELIEVE that these stories are important. We have faith in our own experiences of God, and we have faith that the Israelites were able to recognize God's works.Is Genesis still important? Sure. It is fascinating to see how far back our beliefs in Good and Evil, in God's law, in temptation, and sin, really go. We take that for granted, but if those things are real, it would be very important to record them. The medium of myth doesn't take away from that importance.

History plus embellishments is usually called legend. Throw in too many embellishments, and whatever history was there can become unrecognizable. If something has the characteristics of a myth, of a legend, of an allegory, why not just call it thusly?{I distinguish a difference in what we may interpret as figurative language or metaphor, and what was written as such.}My personal belief is that the events of the Bible were based around some historical happening. There is the option that A., stories were made up to explain something observed, or B., something observed gradually moved into the realm of myth. We get a little of both in the Bible, but I can't very well check my belief that some stories were historical with all of those embellishments included. Sometimes there are plot devices, sometimes it seems like the authors themselves didn't believe what they'd heard, so they made up some filler. Like with Noah. Don't you think it crossed someone's mind that a world-wide flood story would be pretty stupid, so they quickly added in the animals in their version?